He is inconsistent.
He once said that he liked Clarence Thomas a lot.
He also said that his partial birth abortion supporting sister, a judge at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court jsutice.
Ah yes the old lie the Conservative Establishment trots out this every 4 years. “Got to vote how we want you to so we have the Court”.
Oh really? Well we gave you the whole Government from 2001 to 2006 and look at the Court we got for our efforts? A Pro Obama care, pro Gay Marriage judicial activist court!
Thanks for nothing GOPE.
Supreme Court Justices don’t have to be judges or lawyers. Trump might be willing to appoint someone who has never been a lawyer or judge. That may or may not be a good thing.
Trump says his pro-abortion sister would make ‘phenomenal’ Supreme Court justice
We need Ted Cruz to make these appointments. I believe that Cruz’s criteria for a Supreme Court Justice would be different than Trump’s or any of the GOPee candidates. hillary, bernie or biden’s first choice would probably be van jones.
It bothered me when Trump said that about his sister, but I seriously doubt he’d really consider appointing or nominating family to key positions. Here’s why: in a recent interview (Jesse Watters?) he was asked if he’d appoint children to cabinet positions and after saying how great they would be, he said (paraphrasing): “but no, I wouldn’t do that, it wouldn’t look right”. He repeated it several times, so I think he gets it that appointing family like JFK did, would be inappropriate. In that context, I can chalk up any positive comments about his sister’s qualifications as kind words in the interest of maintaining good family relations - a lot of people would have said the same, I think!
Also, I’ve seen his interviews from years ago when he was pro choice - even then he went out of his way to say it was because at the time he thought it was a woman’s right - but that he hated abortion itself. Since then he says he has ‘evolved’ due to witnessing people that he is close to facing that decision, and learning more about when life begins. I think he’s in good company on that score too.
I do agree that the scotus question is a question that should have been asked in the debates!
Define “just legal analysis”.
IMO, that’s even worse than their personal views, as they nary use the Constitution for the basis of any ‘analysis’ to even insinuate ‘legality’.
50+ pages of lawyer-ese, citing case upon case of precedent. Never to they begin “The Constitution states...”; which would make most/every case 3 pages, 2x-spaced.
Just a revolving door of bloviation: law > layer > judge >...